Punjab Roadways Depot and Another vs Madan Lal Sahni

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 515 of 1982 dated 23.4.1986.

On 25.4.1980 the claimant Madan Lal was travelling from Chandigarh to Ludhiana in Bus No. PUR 6185 Bus No. 7737 came and struck the Bus in which the claimant was travelling. Both the buses involved in the accident belong to Punjab Roadways. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained injury on his right arm which resulted in amputation from the right shoulder. The injured-claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,925/- as compensation under the various heads.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant preferred the first appeal bearing No. FAO No. 515 of 1982 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 23.4.1986. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 76,125/-. Against the said order of the learned Judge, two LPAs, one by the Punjab Roadways and another by the claimant Madan Lal were filed.

There is no dispute that the claimant sustained an injury in the accident and his right arm was amputated from near the shoulder. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, on the basis of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Bus No. PUI 773.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, we are unable to come to a different conclusion. Accordingly, we confirm the finding that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Bus No. PUI 7737 belonging to Punjab Roadways. The learned Single Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 76125/- as total compensation under different counts. The claimant at the time of the accident was aged about 57 years. Both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge applied a multiplier of 12 for working out the compensation. Taking into account the age of the injured-claimant and longevity of his life, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 12 cannot be said to be unjust. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge estimated the loss due to amputation at Rs. 3600/- per annum. On the basis of the evidence on record, we do not find the estimate of loss of earning can be said either inadequate or on higher range. The learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant incurred Rs. 6925/- as medical expenses agreeing with the Tribunal. We do not find anything on record to vary the same. The learned Single Judge also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the claimant for pain and mental agony. This amount also cannot be said to be inadequate or exaggerate.

On a consideration of the entire material on record, we are of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs. 76,125/- can not, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be unjustified inadequate or excess. We, therefore, do not find any ground warranting interference with the award of the compensation granted by the learned Single Judge.

The result is, both the appeals falls and are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.